Well I can wait to see what US is going to do about it, like the article said what happened if they sell this technology to the Al-Queda or other groups or countries that does not like US?

Well that is a relief I may not like bush policies but I will not like to be blown out in my own back yard.

This is a big reason why I believe some form of missle defense is a good idea. Maybe Kerry will join Bush in favor of missle defense for the US. I might understand why someone might be against a colossal missle defense plan but a missle defense designed to save American cities from total annihilation from a few to a dozen or more North Korean missles sounds like good defense to me. I would like to merge Kerry and Bush and throw away some things in both. I'm for missle defense. I guess LA, and other cities on the west coast think North Korea is stable and will never consider firing. If not they should tell their favorite candidate to change his policy.

On the other hand, Iran may have nuclear missles that they can fire from subs one day. Guess we can blame NK if that happens.

I can't believe we're letting this happen! We're giving North Korea the ability to kill millions of Americans?!? This isn't a good thing. Our missle defense system isn't going to stop every missle aimed at America, and who says they would aim it at America either...



[edit on 5-8-2004 by Patriot USA]

I say screw missile defense, which wouldn't save your ass anyway and is destabilizing. We should just stick with MAD - you launch on the US and we launch on you. Let's see North Korea is half the size of California and we have thousands of nukes, who's going to win?

Nations that want into the nuclear club want in so that they have more leverage/legitimacy.....Its not so that can really use them unless they have no choice....This is the basic deterrance idea....if you and i both have them, if one of uses them, the other would too....leading to m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction.

I dont think N Korea has any nuclear subs, even if they have some sub launched missile capasity....non nuclear subs dont have as much range or "hide time" under the water to "get lost" and evade detection. The USA has excellent anti sub capasity. Older soviet subs are known to us and how to find them...

thumbs up to star wars or missile defense..whatever theyre calling it these days. One plus from Bush here.

If US target NK missile sites and not the population that will be a act of war probably if they have enough of them one or two could be released to US and then Israel will take the change to go a head and target Iran nuclear site, then we are going to have a mess.

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Actually, when Bush came into office he ramped-up the schedule for deploying anti-ballistic missile interceptors... And just a few weeks ago the first unit was delivered to its silo:

Unfortunately, this system is not 100% operational. Test have been done that show "in theory" it will work, however, no LIVE TARGET tests have ever been done because, well, no one wants to fire a live warhead to test their systems accuracy at defending thier country.

My "guess" is that it will work fine, however, since it has never been used in a practical setting, my information points to a lot of people having their fingers crossed.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Nations that want into the nuclear club want in so that they have more leverage/legitimacy.....Its not so that can really use them unless they have no choice....This is the basic deterrance idea....if you and i both have them, if one of uses them, the other would too....leading to m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction.

I dont think N Korea has any nuclear subs, even if they have some sub launched missile capasity....non nuclear subs dont have as much range or "hide time" under the water to "get lost" and evade detection. The USA has excellent anti sub capasity. Older soviet subs are known to us and how to find them...

thumbs up to star wars or missile defense..

I agree with your point about deterence and the sub situation. But isn't the deterence of MAD altered by having missile defense? ICBM with launch detection vs. ICBM with detection is different from ICBM + detection + defense vs. ICBM + detection. Having a missile shield changes the balance drastically since it theoretically allows attack without fear of reprisal.

The US is moving most of its operational Anti missile units to Hawaii and Alaska to cover the most likely routs of a missile fired by the North Koreans. North Korea probably has one or two missiles so if they fire them at the US we have hundreds of missile we can throw up one has to hit the ICBM if that happens north Korea has no more nukes so the US will have a field day by launching hundreds of nukes at North Korea in retaliation.

I'm curious if a scenario happened that NK launched nukes and took out say LA and San Fran and then the USA fired hundreds back at NK pretty much wiping them off the earth, wouldn't alot of radiation fallout come back to us? Maybe the US would be so ticked off though that we wouldn't care and have a screw the world attitude if anyone wanted to nuke us again. I guess any nuclear situation could be a global problem, not just a US versus NK problem or a problem between India and Pakistan or Iran vs Israel.

Nah I don't think so... the continental US is far way from any radiation look at Chernobyl no radiation reached the US only the countries in the Region. China Russia and Japan would be affected by the radiation not the US.